Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 163) honoring the Sigma Chi Fraternity on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 163.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 163 offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach). House Concurrent Resolution 163 honors the Sigma Chi Fraternity on the occasion of its 150th anniversary.

The Sigma Chi Fraternity was founded in 1855 at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, by seven young men that wanted to establish, and I quote, ``an association for the development of the nobler powers of the mind, the finer feelings of the heart, and for the promotion of friendship and congeniality of feeling,'' close quote.

Today the Sigma Chi Fraternity continues to thrive. Its membership has grown to 202,600 active brothers in 219 chapters at colleges and universities throughout the United States and Canada. Its members continue to enrich and contribute to the quality of life in their communities by volunteering countless hours of service to nonprofit activities and organizations at the national and local levels.

The members of Sigma Chi exemplify the characteristics that the founders of the fraternity believed they should have for admission to the fraternity, good character and fair ability with ambitious purposes, congenial disposition, good morals, a high sense of honor and a deep sense of personal responsibility.

The Sigma Chi Fraternity has also played an integral role in the positive development in the character and education of these young men that have served as a foundation for success and achievements in all fields of endeavor, from the sciences to education to business to professional athletes and to public service.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize and honor the Sigma Chi Fraternity on the celebration of its 150th anniversary and commend the fraternity and its members for its service and achievements over the years.

I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 163.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be very brief. I just want to add my congratulations to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on being a proud member of this fraternity. And it is exciting, I am sure, to see a father-to-son tradition established there. So I extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all my colleagues who are fortunate enough to be a member of this very great fraternity.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of a constituent who looked at tragedy and saw an opportunity to improve lives.

In the wake of last December's tsunami in southeast Asia, Cheri Rezak and a group of like-minded Minnesotans volunteered their time and resources to travel between Sri Lanka and the United States every 6 to 8 weeks to provide medical care, food, and encouragement to affected communities.

Under the name HelpSriLanka.US, these individuals have already helped the men and women of Sri Lanka to build houses and establish and operate a soup kitchen which feeds nearly 500 people each day. They are also purchasing boats, taxis, and sewing machines to re-establish fishing, transportation and garment industries. Their goal is to repeat this community revitalization in villages throughout Sri Lanka.

In addition, Cheri has personally dedicated herself to providing a temporary home, and much needed respite, to children directly affected by the tsunami. Thanks to her diligence in securing temporary visas, the first of her charges is currently living with her family in Minnesota.

Cheri and her fellow volunteers rose above this disaster to help create a better life for the people of Sri Lanka. I commend them for their work and wish them much continued success.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding group of women who have made an incomparable contribution to Northfield, Minnesota, and have set an example of service for all Americans.

The Daughters of the American Revolution is a volunteer women's service organization dedicated to promoting patriotism, preserving American history, and securing America's future through better education for our children.

Next month the Josiah Edison Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, in Northfield will celebrate their 100th anniversary. Over the past century they have established a proud tradition of service from bestowing Good Citizen Awards to high school students to volunteering at VA centers and laying wreaths during memorial services.

The women of the Josiah Edison Chapter are mothers and grandmothers, business women, teachers, ministers and veterans united by a belief in God, love of country, commitment to preserving our history, and dedication to improving education.

As a proud husband of a member, I can assure you these women live their motto of ``God, Home and Country.'' On this anniversary, I want to thank the

women of the Josiah Edison Chapter for their exemplary service and wish them continued success.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment put forward by my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode). While I support his intention with all my heart to provide increased border security to our Nation, I would remind my colleagues that we have been taking action in this Congress, and will take more, to increase the number of border patrol, and as my friend, the gentleman from Texas, said, to pass a REAL ID Act, and to take steps where professional law enforcement officials are stepping up to provide security for our borders.

I oppose this amendment because of my fear of what it does to our Armed Forces at a time when we are stretched incredibly thin. I think back to my days on active duty, and my son's service now on active duty, and how hard they are training for this war on terror, how much time they are spending deployed, and to think we are now going to ask more of them.

My colleague from Arizona mentioned 8,000 miles of border. I am afraid that in our eagerness to defend the border, we will call more and more on our men and women in the Armed Forces and put them in a very untenable position where they are poorly trained to do a job that should be done by professional law enforcement officers and taking them away from their primary mission and stretching them ever thinner in their primary duties. So, reluctantly, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important subject. I wholeheartedly support the amendment. While our men and women in uniform are fighting around the world, we have colleges and universities around this country denying equal access to ROTC programs and military recruiters in the name of political correctness.

I would just remind my colleagues of the words of the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, who told us that our ``all-volunteer force'' is an ``all-recruited force.'' By recruiting the best and the brightest, our United States Armed Forces are today the very best in the world.

We have to stand up for the rights of our recruiters and the rights of our military to gain access to those campuses. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the progress, yes, the progress we are making towards meaningful reform of an ailing Social Security system.

Because of the efforts of my colleagues and President Bush to communicate the truth of the impending Social Security shortfall, Americans are talking, and their elected representatives are listening.

I know I am only one of many Members who have been hosting listening sessions to hear the questions and concerns of my constituents on these important issues. On every one of these meetings, ideas are put forth. Many Members have translated these ideas into legislative proposals. Though the details differ, the message remains the same: we must do something to ensure Social Security will remain strong for our children and our grandchildren.

Unfortunately, not all Members are equally committed to solving the problem. Some opponents of reform have admitted that they would rather stand in the way of honest debate than be part of the solution. Mr. Speaker, this is a disservice to the constituents they represent and the millions of Americans who would benefit from reform.

I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of some outstanding young Minnesotans.

What began as a routine service project for the Hosanna Church Junior High Youth Group has grown into a community-wide effort. The students, led by George Macaulay, set out to collect school supplies for Iraqi children. Once they had filled one box, however, they became inspired to do more. The students reached out to other groups within their church, then to other community groups. As of last week, the students had collected 20 boxes of school supplies and were still going strong.

I recall clearly the smiling faces of the Iraqi schoolchildren in my first congressional visit to Iraq 2 years ago. They were eager to learn, and their teachers and parents expressed gratitude for our assistance.

The Hosanna Youth Group is making a meaningful contribution to these children and demonstrating the commitment of U.S. citizens to the spread of knowledge and freedom.

I thank Mr. Macaulay, Alex, Jay, Patrick, Jack, Justin, Alexander, and Carter for all they have done. Their efforts are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) for yielding to me and I also thank her for her leadership on this issue.

I was just listening to her talk about the change in demographics, and I immediately sort of flashed back to a whole series of town hall meetings that I held in my district. I know many of my colleagues have done those, and one of the charts that I have put up in all of these town hall meetings is a graphic that shows very clearly the very issue that my friend from Kentucky was talking about. It is a chart that shows that, as late as 1950, there were 16 people working and paying social security taxes for each retiree. Sixteen for one, as late as 1950.

But, today, Mr. Speaker, as she so clearly pointed out, there are only three people working. And when my children, much less my four wonderful grandchildren, retire, there will be only two. That chart, when you put that on an easel and the folks attending the town hall meeting have a chance to look at that and absorb the impact, by the time I get to the point in the meeting where I ask all those attending how many of them think we need to do something, that we need to do something to strengthen Social Security, to fix Social Security, every hand goes up. I think it is inescapable.

It is interesting that, in my town hall meetings, most of them were designed to invite senior citizens to come into the meeting, and so the vast majority of the folks attending the meeting and engaging in the discussion were in fact seniors. Some of them had come at the urging of organizations like the AARP. But across the board, they look at the inescapable fact that we have fewer and fewer and fewer people working for each retiree, and also they realize the inescapable fact that we are just living longer.

If you look back to when Social Security started, under the urging of President Roosevelt, the average life expectancy was around 61. I know it changes if you are a man or if you are a woman and so forth, but the general life expectancy was about 61. By the way, retirement age was 65. A very interesting concept they had back then. But, today, the life expectancy is on the order of 77 years. And as we look at the retirement situation for my children and grandchildren, life expectancy is around 83 or 84 years. Clearly, we are living longer, we are having smaller families, and we are going to end up in the situation where the demographic changes in this country are going to put us in a position where there simply are not enough people working in order to provide the benefits for our retirees.

Now, in one moment, I will be happy to yield back to the gentlewoman, but it has been interesting to me as we have gone forward in the discussion in this debate how often some of us are accused of wanting to destroy Social Security or wreck Social Security or end Social Security or put something risky into the program that my mother, for example, my 84-year-old mother depends on, and that is Social Security. Now, I do not, I know the gentlewoman does not, and our colleagues do not want in any way to destroy Social Security and the very important benefits that so many of our seniors depend upon. So as we have gone forward in this discussion and certainly as we have looked at the many, many proposals, we track them in our office. And we are up to 13 identified proposals to do something about strengthening and saving Social Security. We look to make sure it is not going to do any harm and then underscore, as the gentlewoman said earlier, that all of us, I guess it is a sign of the times, all of us who were born before 1950 are not going to be affected.

The plans have been made. Folks are depending on the checks coming like this. And, frankly, we do not want to have anybody alarmed that there will be changes in the Social Security checks that they have come to expect. But in the long term, we are looking to strengthen the program, and we are just coming to grips with the demographics that she described that show we simply are not going to have enough people working and paying

taxes to provide for retirees if we do not do something to strengthen the system.

With that, I yield back to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, we have had several important events occur in the last weeks and days, and today of course we passed a very historic piece of legislation in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to make sure that our country is safer, that our troops have what they need for this war on terror.

All of this prompted me to think that it was time to sort of recap where we are, where we have been, where we are, and where we are going in this war against the Islamic extremists who attacked us so horrifically and so viciously on September 11.

We also have coming up tomorrow Military Spouse Appreciation Day, and that certainly is one of those events that the timing of which has come together to make me want to come to the floor and discuss with my colleagues our progress in this war on terror.

I hope to be joined by some more of my colleagues here in a minute. We had a little bit of scrambling to get the timing right. The early vote today had people out of pocket, as we used to say.

Let me start by just recapping some of the really, really big events that we have seen happen in the last few months. I have a picture here next to me that I think is absolutely astonishing in its implication.

These are women in Afghanistan who are serving now as police officers in the Afghani security forces. Just think about that. Before September 11, before we were attacked, before our country decided to step out and defend itself and freedom loving nations of the world by going after the brutal terrorists who had attacked us in Afghanistan, these women could not be seen in public without being shrouded from head to toe. They had no place in official Afghani society. They could not go to school.

It is remarkable to think what has happened with the free elections last

year in Afghanistan that elected President Karzai and has resulted in women going to school, a woman, a 19-year-old Afghani woman being the first Afghani in history to cast a vote in a free election, and look at them today. To me it is just remarkable and speaks volumes about what has happened in the last couple of years and in the last few months.

Often we see the news here and I have got to tell you that our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq see the news as well. I was just over in both Afghanistan and Iraq in January of this year before the elections in Iraq, and I had the chance to talk to many of our soldiers and Marines who were engaged in combat. And they almost universally, their only complaint was that their story, the story of their hard work and their successes was not being told in the news, because the news that shows up on television and in our newspapers is so heavily weighted to the tough events.

It is a tough security situation in and around Baghdad. There is no question about it. But those soldiers and those Marines, they see the stories of the explosions and the attacks and they do not see the stories of their successes and the friendships that they are making and the progress they are making in helping free countries to become established as democracies in this world.

There is another picture which I want to put up here and share. And I know many of you have seen this picture many times and it speaks absolute volumes about the difference in Iraq today and when Saddam Hussein had the Iraqi people under his iron fist. What a telling story this young woman with the purple ink on her fingers indicating that she had voted. And I know when I was over in Iraq with my colleagues in January, and this was before this historic election, and we were talking with American forces and with Iraqi leaders including then the Interim Prime Minister Allawi, and the then U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte.

We were talking about the prospects for the election coming up and they were great concerns, you may remember, that the election could not go off on time, that no one would show up to vote. That it was going to be a disaster. And I can tell you that the American forces and the Iraqis and our coalition partners were adamant in saying that the elections must go forward. To not have those elections go forward on time would be a disaster, and one which it would be almost impossible to recover from.

And they told us, my colleagues and I, the five of us, three Republicans and two Democrats, and by the way, it is sometimes forgotten, I know that it is sometimes forgotten around America that we can come together and work together in a bipartisan way on a number of issues. And certainly taking care of our troops and doing everything we can to ensure victory in this absolutely tough war that we are engaged in is one of those times.

But we were told by the leaders in Iraq that the elections must go forward, that they would go forward, and that there was security on a scale that had not been seen before, to do everything in the power of the Iraqi security forces and the Americans to make sure that the election took place.

I know that, like my colleagues, I was glued to the television and watching this election day unfold in Iraq, throughout the country; and I was astonished as the day unfolded that the Iraqis were coming, sometimes walking for miles, walking for miles to cast their vote and to proudly dip their finger in the purple ink and thus brand themselves to the terrorists as someone who has defied their threats, the threats to kill them and to cast their vote. They came by the millions and voted.

Today, we have seen this week the Iraqi government sworn in as a result of those elections. They get engaged in politics there like we do here, and not everybody agrees on everything. There was a great deal of wrangling going on there by people who do not have experience in a democracy, and I found that they engaged in it a lot of the same ways as we do here. They tried to cajole each other and threaten each other and twist each other's arms and make deals and move forward towards democracy.

So this week, May 3, Iraq's first democratically elected government in over half a century was sworn in. This event is yet another historic milestone in Iraq's progress toward a representative and transparent government. Our goal, can my colleagues imagine when we have a free Iraq, Iraq with a democratically elected government in power, the force that that free country will have in this region, the help that it will give us in the war on terror in which we are so heavily engaged?

The freedom epitomized by this picture in Afghanistan and this picture from Iraq is so important to our success in defeating these Islamic extremists in gaining back peace for us and security and safety for us and for our neighbors and for the world.

Iraq's new prime minister, Mr. Jafari, has completed the selection of cabinet members, and again, remember how tough this is to do, of different factions in Iraq. He is trying to work with all of them; and even though the Sunnis, in large measure, had boycotted the January election, they have been seeking to be included in this government. I think it is fair and safe to say that many of them wish that they had not chosen to boycott, that they, too, had chosen to walk the miles and stick their finger in the ink and be a part of this great step for freedom and democracy in the world.

According to the report that I am looking at here, the position of defense minister will now be held by a Sunni Arab, even though the Sunnis had largely boycotted the election. The current composition of the cabinet is as follows: 15 Shiite Arab ministers, 7 Kurds, 4 Sunnis, and 1 Christian. This newly formed cabinet is now tasked to write a permanent Iraqi Constitution and must organize fresh elections for the end of this year. This process continues, ever growing, ever adding to their freedom and to democracy in that country, and thereby, I believe, very strongly, adding to our own security and to a better world.

Now, we know that the fight still goes on, and we see those news reports that the soldiers and Marines were a little bit unhappy. But unhappy or not, the facts are that it is still pretty tough out there, and our soldiers and Marines are engaged in combat. U.S. and Iraqi forces have captured over 100 insurgents in Baghdad in 1 day this week. Twelve al Qaeda members were killed close to the Syrian border on Monday of this week. The fighting goes on.

We took, as I said in my opening comments, a very important step today in passing the supplemental funding bill. It did some very major things, and I see that one of my colleagues has walked in, and I do not know if he is ready to talk about that bill. I see a nod from his head, and so I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks today and for his passion about the issues.

We did many things in passing this supplemental, and the details on enhancing our border security are part of our war against the Islamic extremists in this war on terrorism. Those are important steps that we took today in terms of funding and beefing up that security that is so important to our safety here at home.

We did a number of other things in this bill that I think it is useful for us to think about and talk about for just a minute. Clearly, the bulk of the money that we are going to appropriate today, almost $76 billion, went for defense, things that our troops need in order to win in this war.

Today, in the Committee on Armed Services, we had a hearing and listened to testimony from generals in the Army and the Marine Corps about the progress that we are making in adding armor to our vehicles, to our wheeled vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa, and we are making progress. It seems never enough, armor's not thick enough, there is not enough of it. We should never be satisfied, I suppose, until every soldier and Marine is fully protected; but that is simply not possible.

This is a war. It is combat. We need to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to provide our soldiers and Marines with the tools that they need and yet know that combat is a dangerous and, sadly, sometimes fatal business.

I know in our office this week we have been very saddened. My Legislative Director, Miss Jean Hinz, lost her cousin, a Marine, who was killed flying an F-18 over Iraq. These stories wrench at your heart as you put the human and personal face on the result of the sacrifices that our troops are making in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.

We did something else in this bill that I think is important that we remember. We need very much for our new Democratic allies in the region, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, to succeed. So we added money to help the people of Afghanistan, these women and their families and their fellow Afghani citizens, $1.7 billion to help them in Afghanistan. It is important for their development, it is important as they reach for democracy, and it is important for us as we seek victory in this war and peace in the world.

Well, it has been mentioned a time or two that we have a convergence of events here. I think most of my colleagues and most Americans know, or they will remember in sort of a cold sweat here in the next day or so, that this Sunday is Mother's Day, and I know there is always a rush to get those flowers and buy the candy and do those things. Tomorrow is also Military Spouse Appreciation Day. What a nice occurrence that we have Military Spouse Appreciation Day coming together with Mother's Day. This year Military Spouse Appreciation Day falls on the 6th, which is tomorrow. We celebrate this day each year on the Friday before Mother's Day.

So, you see, the confluence of those two events is not an accident, but a reinforcing one of the other. Military Spouse Appreciation Day is set aside to honor the many men and women who bravely support their spouses in uniform, and this reminds us of the importance of the families of our soldiers and

sailors, airmen and Marines who are making such sacrifices. So in the supplemental bill which we just passed, we add money for life insurance, we add money to give to the families of the soldiers who lose their lives, a death gratuity increase from $12,000 to $100,000 and the life insurance from $250,000 to $400,000.

We need to keep these families in mind. And I have another picture here, a scene seen so often as a member of our Armed Forces prepares to leave or comes home from or to the loving arms of his or her family. We need to make sure that we are doing the things that we can, those of us in this body, my colleagues and I, to make sure we are doing everything, not only for the soldier, but for the child as well.

So as we recognize Military Spouse Appreciation Day, I think we need to do it in the context of the family, of the military family. Now more than ever it is particularly important to recognize and celebrate, and celebrate, our military spouses, those thousands who remain on the home front while their spouses have been deployed overseas to help fight in this war on terror. Like our military men and women, the military spouse's bravery goes unparalleled. They remain the strength that we do not always see but is ever present. And I know that is true from my own experience in the military, the importance of that family and the love that goes with it.

This weekend we take the time to appreciate all military spouses and moms nationwide for their strength, unity, patriotism and bravery. Their jobs are not easy, but it is these wonderful individuals that keep this country strong and remind us every day, remind us every day, of what we are fighting for.

So on this weekend we want to say thank you to the military spouses across the Nation and, of course, happy Mother's Day to our mothers. And I, like many of you, will need to be on my way to the store to buy that box of candy. Such a simple gesture, but every gesture we make reaching out to those that are so important in our own lives and to our men and women in uniform is something we have to do.

I have one more picture I would like to put up as a way of kind of wrapping up my thoughts and comments today. Thanks for your support, the sign says, with these servicemen and women. And that thanks for your support needs to go every way in our country; them to their families, them to the rest of us in America, and we, the rest of us in America, to them and to our neighbors around the world. It takes support, it takes family support, it takes all of our support for our men and women in combat. And I believe it is incumbent upon all of us, all my colleagues, all Americans, every day in every way that we can to tell our men and women in uniform how much we love them and care for them and want to ensure their success and make sure that they have everything that they need in order to win this war.

So sort of wrapping up, if you look back to what we have done, and sometimes we forget, we now have free men and women in Afghanistan for the first time ever. A democracy in Afghanistan. The first time ever in 5,000 years. There were women who could not go outside the house who are now serving proudly, serving their country and serving their fellow citizens proudly and looking forward to the advancements of democracy in that country and giving them some hope for the future. One of the poorest countries in the world beaten down by the brutal dictatorship under the Taliban and now free in a democracy growing with hope for the future.

And in Iraq, in Iraq, the purple fingers, the Iraqis walking for miles, defying threats of death to vote in a free election and establishing Iraq not as a haven for terrorists, not as the home of a brutal dictator killing tens and hundreds of thousands of his own people, but as a free democracy.

Then, as we look at the progress our troops are making, their successes in battle, their successes in establishing relationships with the people of Afghanistan and of Iraq, their successes in helping rebuild the infrastructure, we have much to be thankful for, my colleagues. But let us remember that it is not easy and it is not over, and it will take our continued vigilance in making sure that we are supporting our troops, expressing our love and support, and as we might say around here, making sure we are putting our money where our mouth is.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 9, 2005, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of some exceptional young Minnesotans. The students and staff of Lakeville High School have taken it upon themselves to meet a growing need within their community. Inspired to act by the tragic drug and alcohol-related death of a Lakeville student, principals Julie Espe convened a task force focused on drug education and prevention, and the ``Challenge to Change'' effort was begun.

Lakeville students and staff members involved in this task force have organized awareness activities for high school and junior high school students, including panel discussions with students who have overcome challenges, as well as those who have made the tough choice to avoid drug and alcohol use. These events have made a significant impact on the youth of the Lakeville community, and have gained the attention of community leaders and local officials.

Encouraged by the early success, the group has many more activities planned to emphasize their message throughout the upcoming graduation season. The proactive efforts of the Challenge to Change group are a fantastic example of the positive power of community involvement in the lives of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the efforts of those involved in the Challenge to Change program, and wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 126) expressing the condolences and deepest sympathies of the Congress in the aftermath of the recent school shooting at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 126.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 126, which expresses the condolences and deepest sympathies of the Congress in the aftermath of the recent shooting at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for his leadership in introducing this resolution and providing an opportunity for Members of Congress to express our condolences and support for the Red Lake community.

On March 21, 2005, a 16-year-old student opened fire at the Red Lake High School, taking the lives of five students, one teacher and one security guard before ending his own. This troubled teenager is also responsible for the deaths of his grandfather and his grandfather's friend.

As we express our sympathies today, we pause to honor the bravery of heroes such as Derrick Brun, an unarmed school security guard whose self-sacrifice allowed time for a fellow security guard to rush a group of students to safety while costing Derrick his own life. We also honor the memories of those who lost their lives in this terrible tragedy and offer our heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the loved ones they left behind.

Finally, we express our support for the tight-knit Red Lake community. We wish a speedy and complete physical recovery for the five students who were wounded, and a complete emotional recovery for all those affected by this tragedy. The continued recovery of the Red Lake community would not be possible without the hard work and dedication shown by the local, State and Federal law enforcement officials who have responded to this situation and the support, care and assistance given by health care personnel and private citizens both inside and outside this community.

Mr. Speaker, we are all saddened by this tragedy and condemn the violence which occurred at Red Lake High School on that awful day in March. I am thankful for the opportunity to express the condolences of Congress to the victims of this tragedy as well as to their loved ones and surrounding community.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for his leadership on this resolution and urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 126.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers in the room.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want again to thank my colleagues in the Minnesota delegation for their words today and my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), for offering this resolution. And I would just urge all of my colleagues in the House to support H. Con. Res 126.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to continue the discussion of Social Security, what it is, where it is, what we think the problems with it might be, and what some of the solutions might be. I know some of my colleagues have been in a discussion on this important program for the last hour or so, and they plan to join me shortly.

I would like to start by laying out for my colleagues the history of Social Security, what it was, what it has done for Americans, and where it is today.

Social Security, as most Americans know, has been a terrific institution that generations of Americans have relied on. It is a system that I think most of us would agree has to be preserved and protected for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, my 84-year-old mother has been drawing Social Security, and she is at that point where it is her sole source of income. She relies on it very heavily as do millions of senior citizens, and we certainly want to make sure that all of those senior citizens get every dime that they are expecting to come their way. But we also need to make sure that our children, and my children are in their thirties, it seems every day they age another year, an indication of how old I am getting and how rapidly, my children are in their thirties and their children, my four wonderful grandchildren, are 6, 5, 3 and 3. We need to make sure that as we look forward to the future of Social Security that it is there for our grandchildren as well.

I think most Americans, but not all, and most of my colleagues know that Social Security does much more than provide for a retirement, for assistance in retirement. It provides spousal benefits, survivor benefits, dependent benefits, and disability benefits. I believe that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would like to make sure that those benefits, that that security, that that safety net continues into the future for our children and our grandchildren.

Social Security has traditionally functioned as a pay-as-you-go system. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought us Social Security back in 1935, it was a contributory social insurance program. What does that mean? That means that workers put in and workers receive benefits. All workers pay in; all workers receive benefits. It really was not designed as an investment program. It was not designed to do anything other than provide some insurance for you when you reached your retirement years. We have paid for it by taking taxes from the wage earner. When President Roosevelt started the program, we took 1 percent from the employee and 1 percent from the employer. Two percent of the first $3,000 earned was taken up in Social Security taxes to pay for the benefits of current and future retirees. Today's workers support today's retirees through a 12.4 percent tax, one dollar in every eight, half of it paid by the employer, half of it paid by the employee, on the first $90,000 they earn each year. What a difference, 2 percent to 12.4 percent. Two dollars in 100 to one dollar in eight. The program has changed.

It has changed in another fundamental way that I think that all of us, Mr. Speaker, need to be aware of. As late as 1950, and I will refer to the chart here beside me, there were 16 American workers paying for every one beneficiary. Today, we are down to 3.3 Americans working and paying taxes for every beneficiary. Again, what a demographic change in America, a demographic change in the United States, for many reasons, life expectancies are longer, and that is a good thing, we are living longer, healthier lives, families are smaller, and that trend continues. So by 2035, 2040, when younger workers retire, we will have only two Americans working for every retiree. That is a pretty tough load for younger workers to shoulder.

What does that mean in terms of money in the program? As I think most Americans know, we have been taking in those taxes, we have been paying out benefits and taking the excess money and putting it into a trust fund. I am going to get to that trust fund and talk about it in just a minute. But we need to also be aware, I think it is important for us to understand in the current system how benefits are calculated, because as we look to ways that we might need to strengthen Social Security, we need to understand the current system; and I would like to take just a minute to talk about how that works.

The Social Security Administration looks at every working American's working life, all the years that they have worked. So if you, like me and many Americans, you started off working with a paying job in the grocery store or maybe the newspaper or something when you were 16 or 15 and you work until your full retirement age, which by the time younger workers retire under the current system is not 65 anymore, it is 67, you could have been working and paying Social Security taxes for 50 years. The Social Security Administration takes those 50 years and they take your most productive, your highest paid 35 years, and they put it into a formula and, like everything these days, they do not sit down with a hand calculator, there is a computer that has a formula that actually weights the system so that you get a

little bit higher percentage, if you will, if you are a lower-paid worker and a little bit less if you are higher paid; but they put it into the mill, they take those highest 35 years, they average it out, an index is put to it, and you come up with a number and that is your retirement benefit. That is your monthly check, which as our current retirees know, that is adjusted for inflation every year. That is how it works today.

I mentioned that with the increased life expectancy and the smaller families and the lower number of workers per each retiree, we get into a cash flow problem, that is, at some point we are not going to be taking in as much money as we are paying out if we get to the point where there are only two workers for each retiree.

Let us take a look at another chart here. There are, I suppose, many ways to do this. I have been holding some town hall meetings back in my home district, the Second District of Minnesota. One chart that I have often shown shows that our costs are exceeding our revenue. Another way of talking about it, and I have used this chart as well in those town hall meetings, is to show that in the near term, we are taking in more money in FICA, more money in Social Security taxes, that is this dark little bump right here, than we are paying out and that excess money is being marked and put in special Treasury bonds redeemable only by the Social Security Administration, the trust fund, to pay future benefits.

But the Social Security Administration, the trustees report annually as they look forward to the projections for upcoming years what the health of Social Security is. Their latest report, which came out about, oh, 6 weeks or so ago, last month, said that in the year 2017, just 12 years from now, right here on this chart, that we are going to start paying out more money in benefits to retirees than we are taking in in Social Security taxes. More money going out than we are taking in. That puts us into a cash deficit situation.

What are we going to do about that? The Social Security Administration also pointed out in that report that the Social Security trust fund, those special-issue Treasury bonds, will run out of those bonds in the year 2041. So at least on paper for a few years, we will be able to pay those benefits out of the Social Security trust fund by redeeming those special-issue Treasury bonds.

The challenge for us here in this House, in this Congress, is how are we Americans going to redeem those bonds in order to meet our obligation to retirees? That is something we need to think about, because the situation does not get any better in the next 5 years or 10 years or 15 or 20. It does not get better. In fact, even when we have redeemed those bonds, as I mentioned earlier, the Social Security Administration says that by 2041, there are not any bonds left to redeem, and so we are back to that position, we are back to this situation where we have two workers for each retiree.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that is a situation that we have to address. It is our responsibility to address it. The need to address it is now, because there is another little bump here that I think is important to us. In just 3 more years, the leading edge of the baby boomers start to retire. You can see the way the line changes that we have less money coming in and more money going out because those baby boomers, and I have to admit that I am one of them, baby boomers are going to start to earn retirement benefits, take retirement benefits. We start on a down slope, and by 2017 we cross that line. We need to decide what we are going to do about that for the near term and for the long term.

Those Treasury bonds, I have heard some people say, I was in a town hall meeting and some young man stood up, he was about the age of my children, actually perhaps a little younger, I think he was around 30, and he said, well, you know, I'm planning on not having any Social Security whatsoever. There's not going to be anything there for me. I know that is a sentiment that is sometimes widely shared, but let us be honest, that is not true. Even under the current system, there would be something there in Social Security. I think the administration is forecasting now that because there are only two workers for each retiree, that there will be some money coming, around 75 percent of what would have been expected. That is a horrible return. It is a horrible rate of return for a young man or a young woman who pays into Social Security all their life for the benefit of current retirees; and when their time comes to retire, the best that they can hope is 75 cents back on the dollar that they were expecting. By the way, if they are going to get the 75 cents on the dollar, that assumes that they are going to live a full life. It just seems to me that we need to be able to do better for our children and for our grandchildren.

I see that my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, has arrived. I know he has been working on this for many years and has a proposal of his own, and I want to yield to him in just a moment; but it is interesting to me that when I have a town hall meeting, and it does not matter if there are 50 people or 100 people, they tend to be with the senior citizens who are very interested in this subject, they understand what it is, they receive Social Security checks; but when I ask the question, how many of you think that we need to do something to fix Social Security for our children and our grandchildren, it is now almost every hand in the air. When I first started to ask the question weeks ago, not every hand went up. But I think more and more Americans understand as we continue this dialogue and as we continue this debate, their understanding is that there is a problem and we need to do something to address it.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) who has done an awful lot of work on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much for his hard work on this important subject and for joining in the discussion here this evening.

I would like to talk about that trust fund again for a few more minutes because the gentleman is perfectly correct. The President went out to West Virginia and took a look at the filing cabinets where the bonds, special issue Treasury bonds are being held, redeemable only by the Social Security Administration, unlike other government bonds that are issued. And we have to redeem those things. In order to meet our commitment to retirees when we stop taking in as much money in Social Security taxes we are paying out in benefits, we are going to have to redeem those.

And they are very much like an IOU. I do not mean to say that in a derogatory way, but in this particular case because of these special bonds and the way they work, we, all of us in America, all of my colleagues, we have to redeem those bonds out of the general fund. We borrowed it from ourselves; now we have to pay it back to ourselves. And sometimes in a town hall meeting, someone says, That is easy, just pay it back.

That is going to require a great deal of sacrifice on the part of Americans as we look to see where we are going to get the money to pay those back.

And more than that, as I mentioned earlier this evening, even when we redeem those bonds and we pay it back so that retirees get their benefits, by 2041 the Social Security Administration says those bonds are going to be exhausted. And I suppose we could spend a lot of time on the floor of this Chamber, as we are wont to do, to debate whether that year is really 2040 or 2039 or 2042 or 2043. The point is, once we redeem those bonds, and it is a major challenge for all of us to decide how we are going to do that, those bonds are gone and our children and our grandchildren will be receiving only 75 cents on the dollar they expect.

So as the gentleman said earlier, it is a problem that cannot be pushed off. It is something that we have to address in this House, in this body, quickly.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman mentioned that there are a number of proposals. I found it interesting, as this discussion has moved forward and I was trying to keep track of what those proposals involved, that there were so many of them that I simply could not keep them organized in my head and decide which ones had personal accounts, which ones did not, how big the accounts were, how they address solvency.

So there is a wonderful young woman on my staff, and I know the gentleman understands how that works, we are so dependent on the bright folks who work with us, but she put together a table, and I know people cannot see it from here, but I will show it to the gentleman, that has these plans going across the top and the different aspects of them. And right now there are up to 14, I think, on my chart here of different ideas that people have brought forward to address this issue.

And I think that is a healthy thing as we move into the debate. There will come a time when we will need to have a debate and have a bill or amendments on the floor and move to a solution, but I am firmly convinced that it is absolutely critical that we do that sooner rather than later.

In these plans, many of them, most of the ones that I have on this chart because it has been my colleagues from this side of the aisle who have come forward with the proposals for the most part, and the gentleman mentioned he has a bipartisan bill that they are looking at, but these proposals include personal accounts as part of the solution for the long-term solvency of Social Security. And there are differences in all of these, and I know the gentleman was earlier this evening in a roundtable discussion with some other authors of bills as the pros and cons of the different measures were discussed, but I think there are some things that are common that we all need to keep in mind.

All of the proposals on my chart here, which includes the outline that the President had, have recognized that we have retirees today and those about to retire, Americans born before 1950 that will not be affected by whatever our proposal is. And I think that is important for the peace of mind, I think, of my 84-year-old mother and her friends. They do not want to contemplate a change in the program, even though many of these programs virtually guarantee that everyone will get a benefit very much like the one they are getting, in some cases more of a benefit. But we need to reassure all of the seniors in our districts and our family that they will not be hurt; their program will not be changed. Their Social Security check will not be affected by the issues that we are debating here in the House today.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate the gentleman's comment that there are some scare tactics out there, and that is unfortunate because when I look at all of these plans that are across here, and it is the whole range, the gentleman's plan, Senator Graham's plan, the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Shaw) plan, the President's, the AARP's, and others, I do not think that there are any of these plans that want to do any harm to Social Security for the long term. They do not want to leave our children and our grandchildren holding the bag.

They would like to make sure that something is there, and it troubles me when evil motives are attributed to those who are working the best they can, the hardest they can, to find a solution to this horrific cash flow problem that we are facing and to the fact that we are going to be down to two workers for each retiree by the time my children and grandchildren retire.

We need to work to find a solution for that, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to listen to proposals from my colleagues on either side of the aisle, and I believe those proposals, certainly those on this page in front of me, come from people who sincerely want to make the system better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for making that point. It does seem to me to be unacceptable that we are looking at a system that is going to provide a 1 percent rate of return or a negative rate of return. I think the gentleman, in an earlier discussion we were having on the floor, made the point that in some cases it is not only no return, but a horrific rate of return, and I think his example was the single parent. He used the example of the single mother who is 57 or 58 years old, we will use 57, my age, has a couple of children, they are through school, they have graduated high school; and this woman started work when she was 17, she has been paying into the Social Security system, has paid her Social Security taxes faithfully for 40 years, and then tragedy strikes and she dies, and her family gets nothing; a $255 death benefit I think it is today for the thousands of dollars that she has paid into the system. It seems to me we ought to be able to do better than that, and I think that we can.

When we look at the proposals that are out there, there are a wide variety of them, as I mentioned earlier, and the gentleman explained some of the important reasons why a personal account needs to be an important part of this. He said that a personal account does not fix the solvency issue. I might argue that if the personal account is large enough, it will fix the solvency issue, as these plans vary widely insofar as how much money is put into these accounts. But, in any case, it is part of addressing the solvency issue because of the higher rate of return, because of the higher growth, it puts more money into the system and helps us get at this problem of cash deficits.

It also takes money off the table, money that is in a personal account that cannot be used to fund other programs. I found in many town hall meetings people would say, well, you, Members of Congress, you spent the money on other things. If it is in a personal account, it cannot be used to fund other things; and as I mentioned in the example of the 57-year-old man or woman who dies early, in a personal account, they can leave that money, the money in the account is inheritable, they can leave it to their children or their grandchildren, so they do get something back for their 40 or more years of paying into the system.

Well, the debate is an important one. I am glad that it is engaged. I think that it is important that we recognize that we need to work together and try to address these problems. These are not uniquely Republican problems or Democrat problems; these are the facts of the program as it exists today, as it has worked for the last 60 years. The virtually inescapable change in demographics, again, that is not a Republican prediction or a Democrat prediction, or an administration prediction; those are the predictions of the actuaries of the Social Security Administration itself.

So we know that we are facing, we are facing a problem with Social Security. I am pleased to see that Americans, apparently from coast to coast, and certainly in my district in Minnesota, have recognized that we have to do something.

I believe that as the debate goes forward, we will see that there are some clear benefits to including personal accounts as part of, as part of the solution, because of the enormous potential

for growth through the power of compound interest investment in very diversified funds, which may or may not include any stocks.

I know there is a fear out there sometimes when I am talking to my constituents and they say, well, we do not want to put it in the risky stock market; what if we are about to retire and the stock market crashes and we lose all of our money. There are a couple of things about that. Almost all of these programs on this big chart include a combination of traditional Social Security benefits and those in your personal account. Most of them require that the funds in the accounts be invested in very diversified accounts; and most of them would encourage, if not insist in some cases, that the money be invested in virtually risk-free instruments, bonds, or the like as one gets closer and closer to retirement, so that one's retirement would not be affected by any fluctuations in the market.

There are a wide range of approaches. Those with personal accounts call on that wonderful power of compound interest to grow the money in the account and, therefore, grow the money overall in Social Security and start to address that solvency issue. There is much debate still coming up. I look forward to the continuing discussion.

I would like to just close by sort of recapping for the benefit of all here that there are some problems which we have to address. Social Security's financing is unsustainable without change. As I said, most Americans recognize that. We are taking in more money than we are paying out in benefits, but that is going to change. It is going to change in 2017 when we start to pay out more benefits than we take in in taxes. That is rapidly approaching us. The baby boomers start to retire in a very, very few years. We need to get at that system, fix the system so that it will be there for not only my 84-year-old mother, not only for my children who are in their 30s, but for my four wonderful grandkids as well and for all of my colleagues' grandkids.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 119) recognizing the contributions of the United States Marine Corps and other units of the United States Armed Forces on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima during World War II.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the original sponsor of House Resolution 119.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today we recognize the contributions of the United States Marine Corps, an organization which I was proud to serve for 25 years in active duty. We also honor every member of the United States Armed Forces on this the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Sixty years ago, U.S. Marines invaded the small Pacific island of Iwo Jima. Most Americans associate this event with the powerful Pulitzer Prize-winning image of the Marines raising a flag above Mount Suribachi. What many Americans may not realize, however, is that the emblematic photo, which has become a symbol of American bravery and victory, does not capture the first flag-raising at Iwo Jima that day.

Two different groups of heroes planted American flags at Iwo Jima on Mount Suribachi on that day in February of 1945, and the achievement of both groups provided and continues to provide inspiration to defenders of freedom everywhere.

The sole survivor from either flag-raising group is Minnesota's own Charles Lindberg. On that seminal day in February, Corporal Lindberg and five fellow Marines reached the base of Mount Suribachi after several days of fighting and thousands of casualties. The next morning the battalion commander, Colonel Chandler Johnson, sent them to the summit with an American flag and orders, ``If you get to the top, raise it.''

And raise it they did. The flag raised by Corporal Lindberg and his fellow Marines provided an immediately recognizable image of victory and became an inspiration to all who saw it. In describing the reaction to their flag raising, Corporal Lindberg states, ``Boy, then the island came alive down below. The troops started to cheer, the ships' whistles went off. It was quite a proud moment.''

Perhaps sensing the significance of the moment, a commander below ordered a second group to raise a larger, more stable flag in its place. Four hours after the first flag-raising, Associated Press photographer Joe Rosenthal captured the image of the second flag- raising, which is now recognized throughout the world. The second raising and the photograph which captured it complemented the efforts of Corporal Lindberg and his fellow Marines and enabled Americans at home, as well as the world, to share the same symbol of bravery and victory with the victorious Americans on Iwo Jima.

Both of these groups deserve our gratitude, as do all the men and women who served on Iwo Jima and elsewhere during World War II. The symbol of the flag over Iwo Jima reflects the enduring triumph of freedom and democracy, the very things for which our men and women in uniform continue to fight today.

We have much to learn from the tenacity and dedication of the brave heroes of World War II, and I am grateful for this opportunity to recognize their efforts today.

And to you, Corporal Charles Lindberg, from one Marine to another, I salute you from the floor of the House of Representatives in admiration and gratitude for your courage, bravery, and valor. Semper Fi.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, there were so many of our colleagues today who intended to come down and speak on this very important subject and express their admiration and praise for those Marines on Iwo Jima 60 years ago; but as has been mentioned, some of them are involved in a joint hearing on veterans affairs and doing the work that brought them here.

I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), for the discussion today and urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Before we move further in this discussion, which I am looking forward to this evening, I just wanted to touch on a couple of subjects that my distinguished colleague from Arizona has brought up and some of the things we heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

First of all, I know that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle really would like to see a strong Social Security program. I have been telling folks, in fact, I was talking to high school students in Minnesota this last week that it is very important to me that Social Security be in place for my 84-year-old mother, and it will be in place for my 84-year-old mother. But I want Social Security to be in place, to be strong, to provide the kind of retirement safety net that our colleagues have been talking about for my 35-year-old son, my 38-year-old daughter, my 3-year-old granddaughter.

The demographics that my colleague has just put up there start to show the problem. And we are going to get into that some more this evening; but I am disheartened, frankly, I am disheartened to hear some of the language that we were listening to earlier.

Our colleagues ascribed some motives that I think are out of place. One of them, for example, said that the President wanted to reward his buddies with his proposal, and that is simply not true. It is not fair and it ascribes a motive that is not there. One of our colleagues said that we want to gut Social Security. That is not true.

I know that the gentleman has been trying year after year after year to, in fact, strengthen Social Security and make sure that not only do the current retirees not lose benefits, but that my daughter, my son, and my grandchildren do not lose benefits either. And I just hope that my colleagues would all understand that our motives are to strengthen Social Security. We should be working together in a bipartisan way as my colleague has been doing to do just that, and I hope that we can move away from some of the harsh rhetoric that we unfortunately have heard tonight and I am afraid that we are going to be hearing in the future.

Listening to the debate, the arguments earlier this evening, it was clear that our colleagues recognize that something needs to be done. I know that the gentleman from Connecticut, I believe, said everybody knows that we have got to do something to strengthen Social Security, and other Members have said everybody knows we have to do something. And we heard a couple of proposals and increasing taxes was proposed by the gentleman from California, I believe; but if we know that something has to be done, we ought to be able to move forward and engage in the debates and engage in the discussion about what we are going to actually do to strengthen Social Security.

But I know that not everyone understands the nature of the problem and how quickly it is going to arrive, and, unfortunately, if we do not do something, how quickly it will turn into a crisis. I ask the gentleman to continue the explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I think it is a terrific graph. The problem is clearly outlined with that big red area that says cash deficits.

I just want to reinforce what the gentleman said about the trust fund; the trust fund not actually having any money in it, having IOUs, having bonds that have to be redeemed through the general fund. And the gentleman, I know, understands full well that it is highly unlikely without some major change that we could reach that 2042 date when the IOUs run out. The impact to all of America between 2018 and 2042, if we do not do something now, would just be catastrophic.

To get back to the gentleman's opening comment about problem or crisis. Certainly it is a problem today, but clearly a crisis when you get into that big red area that says cash deficits. That is why it is so important we should have this debate today; that the American people understand that we are facing a problem which is going to turn into a crisis. We need to get this debate engaged and agree on a solution which will strengthen Social Security.

I know there are many proposals out there. The gentleman has a bipartisan proposal, the President has put forth an outline of a proposal. Our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and Senator Sununu have a proposal, and others, and that debate, that discussion is the one we need to have. If there are others who think that simply the solution is to raise taxes, which was suggested here tonight, then, fine, let us put that discussion into the debate as well. But let us recognize that that red area, that sea of cash deficits is something that is looming.

Now, I am part of that leading edge, or maybe 1 year behind it, of those baby boomers, and it is a rapidly approaching demographic shift that we need to address.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman.

You are one of the few.

I thank the gentleman for yielding once again, and I just want to underscore the point the gentleman made that increasingly our constituents understand that something needs to be done.

This sort of anecdote has been put forth many times before, but just this last week when I was back in my district, I was visiting one of the high schools. I had a group of students, about three classes, and we were discussing a large number of subjects, everything from the war to taxes to education, and one of the subjects was Social Security.

I asked the question, which I am sure many of my colleagues have asked, to those students. I said, how many of you believe that Social Security is going to be there when you retire. Just asked the basic question. Not a hand went up. I thought, well, maybe they are just a little shy and do not want to raise their hand. So I reversed the question. I said, how many of you believe that Social Security will be gone when you retire? And about a third of the hands went in the air.

Now, as the gentleman knows, sometimes when talking to high school students, or Members of Congress for that matter, not everybody is paying full attention, but it was clear to me the young people in my district, and I think across the country, just have no confidence that the Social Security that their grandparents are using and enjoying is going to be there for them. And the gentleman has shown us very graphically what that demographic problem is. I believe that underscores our purpose here to strengthen Social Security. Not to destroy it, not to weaken it, and certainly not to gut it.

I know many of the proposals that have been put forward, the President and many of our colleagues, call for including the personal accounts, which the gentleman is going to talk about and taking advantage of the enormous power of compound interest to create a nest egg which they will have in conjunction with the Social Security program and that will provide the benefits that we were hearing about earlier tonight that women particularly require. We want to make sure that the program is there. We are looking for a way to strengthen it.

Again, I just thank the gentleman for his persistence on this issue and his continued leadership as we move forward in the debate.

I believe that is true.

As I said in my remarks just a moment ago, I know that that was an anecdote that many of our colleagues have expressed, because they have had the same experience of asking young

people, high school seniors, college students, others, if they think Social Security is going to be there when they retire. I have never had a hand, I have had the same experience as the gentleman, I have not been asking the question for as many years, but never a hand goes up where they believe it is going to be there.

And what a shame, because they ought to have a system, all Americans ought to have a system that they can count on and that they believe is going to be there. And until we do something to really strengthen the system, they will not have faith that it is there. And they should not, because without that fix it just will not be there in that manner.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is critical that all of America understands what the gentleman said is accurate. I have a table that my staff keeps updated almost daily as we start to engage in this debate. I do not know of a single proposal, certainly no serious proposal, that alters in any way, in any way the Social Security program for those my age, or 55 and up. It does not change it a bit. It is the same. You get the same check, the same increases. The program is exactly the same. My 84-year-old mother is going to continue to get her checks in exactly the same way she has been getting them for the last 20 years. The program does not change for her.

I think that is a key piece of this overall picture that we are talking about as we move forward in the debate. There are different programs, and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has a program he has been working, others have other proposals. Most of those on this side of the aisle correctly create some sort of a personal account, an account that our younger workers can own, that grows, that has the opportunity to give them a greater return than the current system gives them. It gives them something that they own that they can leave to their heirs. No proposal affects the benefits of any current senior whatsoever.

I think it is important that we understand that as we debate the details of the proposals such as the one that my colleague has, and we have that basic understanding that we are talking about no changes for seniors, an opportunity to increase the return, to take advantage of that interest, increase the rate of return for our younger workers. That is the position we are starting from, not the position that we heard earlier in the evening of gutting Social Security, of trying to do something to help the President's buddies and those other unfortunate things we heard earlier. This is about making sure the program is there for our grandkids like it has been there for our parents.

If the gentleman will yield, I would like to take this opportunity to go back to the point that the gentleman made earlier in his example of the 48-year-old single mother. The gentleman from Arizona and I are paying in to Social Security. We are in the Social Security retirement system.

We also have the Thrift Savings Plan that he just described. Should I die today, I would not be able to leave for my children or my grandchildren anything out of the money that I have paid for many years, not quite as many as the gentleman but many years into Social Security, but I can leave and I will leave the money that is in that Thrift Savings Plan because I own it. And it underscores the point that the gentleman made earlier, that one of the terrific benefits about having a system that strengthens Social Security, that has a personal account as a component of that is that that money is absolutely yours, and I believe that in all the proposals that we are going to be debating put forward by the gentleman that we have talked about earlier, that account is owned by the individual and they can leave it to their heirs when they die.

It is a major difference between this proposal and the current system. While it is providing wonderful paychecks for my mother, she does not own that. And I want my children and my grandchildren to own something that is part of their retirement system. Unfortunately, as we said earlier, for those that are 55 and up, we cannot strengthen that program for them. Nothing in the system is going to change for them. Nothing. It is not going to get better. It is not going to get worse. It is exactly the same. But for my kids and

my grandkids, what a wonderful thing to have as part of their Social Security an account that they will own like the one that the gentleman was describing, the Thrift Savings Plan that can be tailored to their needs and their age and they will own. They can use it in their retirement or they can leave it to their heirs. I just wanted to step in at that moment to see if we could not underscore the important difference between having an account that you own and one that you do not.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Boy Scouts of America and the right of the Department of Defense to continue their support of this proud organization.

The Boy Scouts of America enjoys a long tradition of excellence. For nearly a century young men have joined the scouts, and have come away with essential life skills and character building experiences. Many of my colleagues here today claim alumni status in the Boy Scouts and credit their scouting experience in the development of a commitment to civic responsibility. I am proud to include myself in this group. And, I am especially proud that my son, now a major in the U.S. Army is an Eagle Scout.

The Department of Defense has long shared in the support of the Boy Scouts and their mission of preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes. Unfortunately, a small group threatens to put in jeopardy the well-being of this outstanding organization for the purposes of political grandstanding.

I stand today with my colleagues to encourage the Department of Defense to continue their critical support of the Boy Scouts of America, and protect their constitutional right to free speech.